The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (and some other religious talk)

I recently decided to read The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, by Bobby Henderson. While I am agnostic, I am inclined towards atheism, and the parody implied by this book intrigued me. I liked the idea of pointing out that the FSM is just as ridiculous, and as valid, as any other revered deity. So I went into this book expecting to see a spoof of a religious text, with every part of it being similar to other texts in some way, creating a myth that is ridiculous, in the same way that other world myths are to those outside of the culture.


But I was disappointed. Most of the book was written by "experts" trying to prove the religion by stupid arguments, most of which only the most amateur of apologists would use. Some portions were repeats of other parts, which was annoying (the graph for the effect of Pirates on average global temperature was used about 5 times). If anything, the book serves as one of those weird treatises by religious fanatics that no one from the religion really wants to own up to.

There were some good parts, though. I won't give them all away, for those who actually want to read it, but there were some clever connections made between reality and the effects of a god made of pasta. After a while, though, the points about that started getting tiresome. So it's fun for a while, but it really drags towards the end. I would've enjoyed it more if it had been shorter, or if it included some excerpts from a fake religious text (which would have been good for Henderson market-wise, since he could've written another book--one which would've been exactly what I'd been hoping this one would be).

I give this one 3.3/10.

This book also made me think about my religious stance a little, and how I feel about atheists. In my sophomore year at high school, I read Science and the Supernatural, a series of letters between a Catholic and an atheist. The latter pointed out that he was actually agnostic, although he was strongly against the existence of God. His distinction was that while he believed God didn't exist, he knew that it was impossible to know for sure, and that alone made him agnostic. This is something I struggle with. Once, my dad talked to me about a different form of agnosticism, which is simply not believing in anything at all (my current stance).

Of course, we always want to categorize things, so as I looked at some stuff about religion, I came upon the term Atheist Agnostic, which basically means not believing that a god exists, but knowing there is no proof. At first I thought I fit this category, since I have an atheistic inclination. But then I started thinking more about it. My aim is to be more objective, and so I feel bad for being so vehemently atheistic in my thoughts. Plus, there's a good amount of atheists who obnoxiously call all theists idiots (similar to the way a lot of theists tell others that they're going to hell). I don't want to be associated with this trend, and I really hope it goes away, along with all the rampant intolerance between other religions.

Another problem is that "agnostic" is used in religions sometimes to mean that someone believes in the general parts of a belief system, but isn't part of a certain denomination, or is unsure about certain parts of it. This gives people the idea that agnosticism is just a prefix or suffix that is added onto a religion to talk about personal uncertainty within a bigger picture. I don't really like this, since it creates my problem with the Atheist Agnostic label. I'm not an atheist; my agnosticism comes first. But Agnostic Atheist pretty much says the same thing (heck, maybe that's the better term for it). Should I say Atheistic Agnostic? Agnostic with a splash of Atheism?

So I much prefer the idea that I am Pure Agnostic. I don't believe in anything. I don't believe God exists; I don't believe God doesn't exist. I frankly just choose not to believe. Believing puts you in a position where you can't accept that other data could be true. While I think it's most likely that God doesn't exist, I know that it's impossible for me to know that for sure. But I'm not going to believe anything either way. I work under assumptions gained through inductive reasoning and probability, but I always realize that I can be wrong. Now, I'm not trying to convert anybody, but I think this is the best attitude for people to have, since it fosters tolerance for other beliefs and other ways of living.

And just for future reference...when I use the word "believe" in a sentence...know that I'm using it in a casual manner, just throwing it out there because it fits--not because I'm strict about the thing in question.